Case Note & Summary
The case involves a civil revision application filed by M/s. SGM Properties & Investments Pvt. Ltd. (the applicant/landlord) against Basantkumar Bilasrao Rungta (the respondent/occupant) and the Court Receiver. The applicant purchased a property in March 1982, which was occupied by three persons, including the respondent, whom the applicant considered trespassers. The applicant filed SC Suit No.685 of 1990 seeking eviction. The respondent contested the suit and filed a notice of motion in 1992 seeking injunction against interference with his possession. The applicant also filed a notice of motion for appointment of a receiver. The trial court and the appellate court concurrently held that the respondent's suit for possession was not barred by limitation. The applicant challenged these concurrent findings under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), raising a question of law regarding limitation. The High Court examined the facts and the law, particularly Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which provides a 12-year period for a suit for possession of immovable property based on adverse possession. The court noted that the respondent's possession became adverse from 1990 when the applicant filed the eviction suit, and the respondent filed his suit within 12 years from that date. Therefore, the suit was not barred by limitation. The High Court found no error in the concurrent findings of the courts below and dismissed the revision application. The court also noted that the revision was against concurrent findings but raised a question of law, which was examined and found to be without merit.
Headnote
A) Limitation - Adverse Possession - Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - Suit for Possession - The applicant landlord contended that the respondent's suit for possession was barred by limitation as the respondent's possession became adverse from 1990. The court held that the suit was filed within 12 years from the date when the respondent's possession became adverse, i.e., from 1990, and thus not barred. The concurrent findings of the courts below on limitation were upheld. (Paras 2-10) B) Civil Procedure - Revision under Section 115 CPC - Concurrent Findings - The court noted that the revision was against concurrent findings but raised a question of law regarding limitation. The court examined the facts and law and found no error in the concurrent findings. (Paras 2-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit for possession filed by the respondent was barred by limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, given the concurrent findings of the courts below.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the civil revision application, upholding the concurrent findings that the suit was not barred by limitation.
Law Points
- Limitation
- Adverse Possession
- Article 65 Limitation Act
- 1963
- Section 115 CPC
- Concurrent Findings
- Question of Law
